GEOFF BENNETT: A new lawsuit in Missouri could have sweeping implications for the nation's historically Black colleges and universities and the billions of dollars they say they have been denied over decades.

Current and former students at Lincoln University are suing the state for nearly $549 million, alleging that Missouri systematically underfunded the school compared with the University of Missouri.

The case could become a model for similar legal challenges across the country.

Joining us now is Don Calloway, a former Missouri state lawmaker and attorney who founded The 1890 Project to challenge longstanding funding disparities at historically Black land grant universities.

He's also leading this lawsuit against Missouri.

This conversation, we should say, is part of our series on higher education called Rethinking College.

Don, it's great to see you.

DON CALLOWAY, Founder, The 1890 Project: Good to see you, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: So we know for decades HBCUs have been receiving less funding than their predominantly white counterparts.

But you're arguing that what happened at Lincoln University in Missouri, you're saying that this wasn't simply unfair, that it was illegal.

What exactly did the state do wrong and what makes this a violation of federal law?

DON CALLOWAY: So, from 1987 to 2020 -- really to the present, but through 2020 on paper, we see for the first time, because the federal government started tracking -- based upon the states' -- individual states' own reporting, the federal government started tracking and then publishing exactly what each state allocated to its land grant institutions.

So it's an important context here.

Every state in the country has a flagship university, your University of Missouris, your Auburn Universities.

That is an 1862 land grant institution, which the government gave thousands of acres to place a school and give -- then gives millions of dollars a year to each school to fund.

After slavery ended, in 1890, there came a series of those land grant institutions for the freed slaves to educate them concurrently.

And what we have found is that, from the inception, every state has not met its obligation to fund the 1890 equitably with the 1862.

As a result, we didn't see that data published until 2023.

It goes back to starting in 1987, which was the first year that the feds began to aggregate that data.

And so our lawsuit is based upon the notion that the state of Missouri underfunded Lincoln University as compared to the University of Missouri, to the tune of about $361 million, since we have begun tracking the data.

GEOFF BENNETT: So we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

Those numbers can feel abstract, but what has the loss of funding actually meant for generations of students at Lincoln University?

DON CALLOWAY: Yes.

Well, a couple of things.

I'm glad you asked that.

First of all, it's not just Lincoln, but there is an aggregate across the 1890s of about $12.6 billion of the 16 states who did not properly fund their 1890, as compared to their 1862.

But there are real, tangible damages here.

You take career earnings of a FAMU graduate compared to a Florida State graduate, a Fort Valley graduate in Georgia, as compared to the University of Georgia graduate.

When you attend an institution that has been hampered by demonstrable underfunding, the facilities are in disrepair.

That has a definite effect on the quality of life on campus.

The programmings, access to advisory facilities, access to all of the things that one believes goes into the standard of life that one expects from a reasonably competitive college are diminished.

And we see the results of that as you enter the professional sector, whether it's private or public, through end of life.

GEOFF BENNETT: You used to serve in state government.

DON CALLOWAY: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: So you know that states can say, look, we make funding decisions based on enrollment, institutional needs, performance, budgetary issues.

Where is the legal line between a legitimate funding decision and unconstitutional discrimination?

And how can you prove that Missouri crossed that line?

DON CALLOWAY: Yes, that's a great question.

Well, one of the ways that Missouri underfunded Lincoln is, it created a five-metric rubric.

And so it has -- gets a certain amount of money from the federal government.

The state of Missouri is supposed to match that.

Well, what it did in Lincoln's case is created a five-metric rubric that apportioned 20 percent of its state match, which was mandatory, upon Lincoln hitting these certain metrics.

They didn't apply that metric to the University of Missouri.

So that is facially unconstitutional, inasmuch as, number one, the state had no precedent to create this thing.

But, secondly, they didn't apply it equally to the University of Missouri to determine its match.

So that, in and of itself, whether or not we ever achieve the remedial fund of the corpus of $361 million, that funding metric can be destroyed immediately.

And that provides us the prospective relief.

But that's just one of the ways that we make a very clear legal argument that this was fundamentally and facially unconstitutional.

GEOFF BENNETT: The $549 million number, how did you arrive at that?

DON CALLOWAY: That's a figure with nominal interest.

The 548 is salacious.

It makes it a bigger headline, but that's with nominal interest calculated.

I hope that we don't have to get that because we'd be glad to settle for the objectively indisputable 361 that was withheld from Lincoln.

GEOFF BENNETT: As you were putting this case together, did you happen upon the reason why, why whoever it was put these hurdles in place for Lincoln to get the money that they were owed... DON CALLOWAY: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: ... and those same hurdles were not in place for the University of Missouri?

DON CALLOWAY: Well, I don't think it's any different in Missouri than it is in Arkansas, Pine Bluff, as related to U.A., or Florida, again, FAMU as related to Florida State.

It's just a vestige of a segregated higher education system.

And so I'm not looking at any individual legislator or governor or attorney general across the country.

You can't look at anybody and say, hey, you're wrong, you're racist.

Most of us, and I'm talking to me because I was a legislator at the time, most of us just inherited the system we were given.

But when the data was published and made plain on September 18, 2023, you have an obligation to do better once you know better, right?

And so that is the very objective case we're bringing, and we're asking legislators of good faith to make a very clear decision to right a historical wrong, but, more importantly, fix the funding metrics going forward so that these institutions are strengthened for the future.

They're not -- Lincoln is not a majority-Black institution anymore.

GEOFF BENNETT: True.

DON CALLOWAY: It is -- the current student body is more white.

You could say the same thing for West Virginia State, also a historically Black institution.

And so what you're doing is harming an entire region of people who have played by the rules, gone to college, stayed out of trouble, and they're going into a work force with diminished economic prospects.

And I think every legislator, regardless of party or political affiliation, has an interest in fixing that.

GEOFF BENNETT: If you prevail in Missouri, this could potentially open the door to billions of dollars of claims nationwide.

DON CALLOWAY: Yes, we will absolutely prevail in Missouri, first of all.

But, once we do so, it does open the door and it already has, because your historically Black land grant colleges have the same case across the board.

Every state's underfunding might have been done in a little bit different ways and different nuanced ways, but the objective violations of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause are there across every state.

So, we have already heard from legislators in Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, all of whom are interested in helping us bring their case.

So we're very excited about the potential national ramifications, which could fix this historical wrong going forward.

GEOFF BENNETT: Attorney Don Calloway, good to speak with you.

DON CALLOWAY: Geoff Bennett, pleasure, man.